Good point Lit, and a good question. Could it be because many of the PhD students end up professors and it's a way to keep a good influx of talent to go around? I mean, what do you so with a PhD in philosophy other than teach philosophy? Could be way off on that guess.

Problem is there are too many PhDs and not enough professorships to accommodate them.

Medical school and Law school charge the tuition they do because they can. An Art History PhD will never make enough, in their lifetime, as a decent doctor or lawyer in a single year. STEM PhDs are making a lot of money now. I expect their tuition to go up soon if they haven't already.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

Also, I bet if they start charging them medical school type tuitions the overabundance problem of PhD's would solve itself.

Or departments could just admit less PhD students.

I have not yet sent my CV to Cyberdyne Systems, no.

jebrick wrote:

Medical school and Law school charge the tuition they do because they can. An Art History PhD will never make enough, in their lifetime, as a decent doctor or lawyer in a single year. STEM PhDs are making a lot of money now. I expect their tuition to go up soon if they haven't already.

Practitioners in other first world nations make less, which also reduces healthcare costs. And, of course:

Quote:

But it’s important to keep in mind, the report notes, that health care professionals in other O.E.C.D. countries pay much less (if anything) for their medical educations than do their American counterparts. In other words, doctors and nurses in the rest of the industrialized world start their medical careers with much less student loan debt compared to medical graduates in the United States.

If we want to bring down costs by paying doctors less, why not waive tuition?

Tuition for a PhD in physics or chemistry might soon go up, but the accepted PhD candidate in a good to top physics program is not going to be asked to pay for any of it. Tuition will be waived and stipend supplied. None of the PhD candidates in the Mathematics Dept at Carnegie Mellon are paying for any of it.

STEM tuition and Medical tuition must cost more because the resources needed for training are expensive. But a law degree? WTF. It needs no more resources than the Art Historian program.

"Because they can" means "because capitalism." I get that.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

Whenever problems arise, with anything, capitalism is the last place anybody looks. If at all.

med, law and undergrad tuitions are all ridiculous because no matter the price, the fed govt will guarantee student loans to anyone. Not what I'd call pure capitalism.

But charging what the market will allow is. Which is what med schools are doing. And tuitions have risen not only bc of federal loan guarantees. There are many reasons, some of which include on campus lazy rivers and administrative bloat that rivals the IRS.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

But charging what the market will allow is. Which is what med schools are doing. And tuitions have risen not only bc of federal loan guarantees. There are many reasons, some of which include on campus lazy rivers and administrative bloat that rivals the IRS.

But the market would never allow those kind of tuition increases without the govt loans. Take that away and you have a shit ton of empty dorm rooms nationwide. The market is completely artificial.

Lazy rivers, climbing walls and bloated administrations would never have been an option without the loan money pouring in and creating the ridiculous cycle that is now higher education in America. The easiest no brainer vote for any University board/administration has got to be to raising tuition. No brainer since such a small % of students don't use loans.

I think everyone agrees that its getting to the tipping point when the loan bubble will burst. it can't go on forever, right?

But the market would never allow those kind of tuition increases without the govt loans. Take that away and you have a shit ton of empty dorm rooms nationwide. The market is completely artificial.

Lazy rivers, climbing walls and bloated administrations would never have been an option without the loan money pouring in and creating the ridiculous cycle that is now higher education in America. The easiest no brainer vote for any University board/administration has got to be to raising tuition. No brainer since such a small % of students don't use loans.

I think everyone agrees that its getting to the tipping point when the loan bubble will burst. it can't go on forever, right?

I think you are wrong about the bolded part. My sister went through law school in the late 80's, well before the guarantees, She graduated with over $100K in debt. She also married a litigator so they paid off their student loans in about a year.

Point is, the cost for the law degrees has been high for a while. I do not argue that the guarantees have not driven up all aspects of college tuition but some of them have been high because the perceived benefit to the student and the university have also been high.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

But the market would never allow those kind of tuition increases without the govt loans. Take that away and you have a shit ton of empty dorm rooms nationwide. The market is completely artificial.

Lazy rivers, climbing walls and bloated administrations would never have been an option without the loan money pouring in and creating the ridiculous cycle that is now higher education in America. The easiest no brainer vote for any University board/administration has got to be to raising tuition. No brainer since such a small % of students don't use loans.

I think everyone agrees that its getting to the tipping point when the loan bubble will burst. it can't go on forever, right?

I think you are wrong about the bolded part. My sister went through law school in the late 80's, well before the guarantees, She graduated with over $100K in debt. She also married a litigator so they paid off their student loans in about a year.

Point is, the cost for the law degrees has been high for a while. I do not argue that the guarantees have not driven up all aspects of college tuition but some of them have been high because the perceived benefit to the student and the university have also been high.

Whenever problems arise, with anything, capitalism is the last place anybody looks. If at all.

And yet the first place you look.

I’ve often wondered what socialists utopia you hale from as well as how you earn a living. Being you are such a staunch hater of capitalism. Almost bitterly so. Or least that is the impression you leave.

“From each according to ability, to each according to need” sounds good on paper, doesn’t quite work in real life.

It has not risen nearly as much but also is quite different than a medical doctor. If it were all based on the student loans you would expect all would rise at the same amount but they do not. From your link I see that 72% of medical students left school with debt in 1972 and 86% in 2011. So a high amount of debt has always been associated with the schooling ( that takes 7-10 years to complete based on the specialty).

Costs to the Public: According to a 2011 report by Towers Watson, since 1975, when medical malpractice insurance data were first separated out from other types of liability, medical malpractice cost increases have outpaced other tort areas, rising at an average of 10.0 percent a year, compared with 7.5 percent for all other tort costs. However, growth in medical malpractice costs since 2005 have averaged less than 0.5 percent annually. Regardless of whether a case is won or lost, going to court is expensive.

That the schools and hospitals have to pay for the insurance for interns has a reason for driving up the costs.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

It's all such a stupid waste of time....a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I just wish they actually could articulate what they were kneeling for. No one really can explain it with any cohesion, and they certainly can't articulate what any of this has to do with the anthem or flag. It's all such nebulous BS meant to score social media points and flame the hysteria.

The kneeling is so dumb to begin with. Kneeling is an act of complete subjugation. So, they are subjugating themselves to "America"?

The flag represents the country.

People of color don't believe they are full partners in this country.

They believe they're being targeted unfairly by law enforcement because of the color of their skin.

The kneeling is bringing a shitload of attention to their cause.

Whether you or I like it or not.

I can’t wait until every cop in this country has a camera on their hat and then we will truly see how many “people of color” are being targeted by law enforcement.

Kodiak, baby, I am not including undergrad. Some people are on fire and finish coursework in two years, pass comprehensive exams by end of year three, and bang out a dissertation by the end of year five. But a lot take 7 years, sometimes 8.

That's crazy. Chicago's finance PhD - arguably THE top program for finance - takes an average of 6 years. Maybe because those are the best of the best (they only admit a handful each year, and graduate about 2....most already have a PhD in Math or Physics). The ones who don't make it in finance usually have to settle for a PhD in economics.

But, yeah, Chicago pays a stipend for their Econ/Finance PhD's, and no tuition. I think some who might not get in initially end-up transferring out of the MBA program.

But charging what the market will allow is. Which is what med schools are doing. And tuitions have risen not only bc of federal loan guarantees. There are many reasons, some of which include on campus lazy rivers and administrative bloat that rivals the IRS.

I don't think the cost is really the factor. A doctor who will make $160k a year really doesn't have a problem servicing and paying down $300k in school costs. A lot of that is pyschological - doctors look at Wall Street types and lawyers at big firms making more money, and making more money sooner, and feel underpaid because they're just as smart.

Law school is a different story. There are WAY too many lawyers out there - people drop out of the workforce for 3 years, take on $200k in debt and then can't even find a job in their field. Same thing with the MBA, but you're only out for 2 years and many more people are doing it in night or weekend programs and not leaving their job.

Top people in medical/law/business have no problems with the debt, because they earn multiples of that. It's the mediocre students who load-up on debt because they think a piece of paper is the ticket to riches....cost of admission, maybe, but no guarantee of success. School cost more in the US, but the degree is also more valuable. $300k in loans is a lot of money, maybe $40k a year for 15 years, but that explains only a fraction of the 2-3X gap in salaries of US doctors vs. Europe.

Kodiak, baby, I am not including undergrad. Some people are on fire and finish coursework in two years, pass comprehensive exams by end of year three, and bang out a dissertation by the end of year five. But a lot take 7 years, sometimes 8.

That's crazy. Chicago's finance PhD - arguably THE top program for finance - takes an average of 6 years. Maybe because those are the best of the best (they only admit a handful each year, and graduate about 2....most already have a PhD in Math or Physics). The ones who don't make it in finance usually have to settle for a PhD in economics.

But, yeah, Chicago pays a stipend for their Econ/Finance PhD's, and no tuition. I think some who might not get in initially end-up transferring out of the MBA program.

And then consider that if you're teaching on top of it or, say, if you got a visiting prof position (full-time, non-tenure) as ABD (all-but-diss), now your research time has to be split with class prep, grading for 120 students without help, etc. And suppose on top of that you have children, which take up an unbelievable amount of time when they are very young. All sorts of reasons can push you past the 6 year mark and into 7 and 8.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

And then consider that if you're teaching on top of it or, say, if you got a visiting prof position (full-time, non-tenure) as ABD (all-but-diss),

But that's apples-to-oranges, The average time is 5-6 years, INCLUDING the teaching req which amounts to 1/4 or 1/3 of a year (including summers).

I get that people take longer for a variety of reasons, but that's a personal choice if not a personal lack of ability. None of that is neither here nor there - if you want to become an expert on the mating habits of the Florida swamp bullfrog, you should probably expect to struggle financially.

And then consider that if you're teaching on top of it or, say, if you got a visiting prof position (full-time, non-tenure) as ABD (all-but-diss),

But that's apples-to-oranges, The average time is 5-6 years, INCLUDING the teaching req which amounts to 1/4 or 1/3 of a year (including summers).

I get that people take longer for a variety of reasons, but that's a personal choice if not a personal lack of ability. None of that is neither here nor there - if you want to become an expert on the mating habits of the Florida swamp bullfrog, you should probably expect to struggle financially.

I don't see why it is an apples to oranges comparison. You said taking 8 years is crazy. I explained why it is not crazy. And that average time is presumably across all fields, which is not helpful. Really, one needs to look at the averages for the individual disciplines.

No one pursues a PhD in the liberal arts or an unapplied science with the goal of making money. It is true that doctors and lawyers do. Now that I think about it, maybe those money grubbing assholes should be being charged as much as they are.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

1. Make all federal student loan payments tax deductible. Interest, definitely, but I would propose principal and interest.

2. No more student loans for whatever you want. Federal student loans will be awarded only for majors determined to be in demand or needed (based on projections), to be re-evaluated every year. So, if you want to go to school for engineering, or computer science, etc? The government will pay. Want to go to school for art history? You can pay for it out of pocket.

3. Partial, across the board student loan forgiveness up to a certain amount, so long as that money is used for purchasing a home, starting a business that employs people, or put into a retirement fund (e.g. up to $30,000 forgiven upon showing that you have put that amount into a down payment or into a 401k). Could add other categories.

In theory, in the short term, you decrease what the government gets from the loans, but you also significantly decrease delinquency and you boost entrepreneurship and the real estate market.

This is old. Thought this was fitting as well as funny. Good for those pilots.

The New Orleans Saints made the mistake of once again disrespecting our veterans, our country and our flag. After an embarrassing opening to a game with the worst ratings in Saints’ history, the players and coaches learned that their actions have consequences.

Both the pilot and co-pilot of the Boeing 737 the Saints use to travel are combat-hardened American heroes. They flew sorties over Baghdad with Saddam’s best weapons firing back. They fought with their lives for your freedom and watched many of their friends die. Today they took a stand for those brave souls:

“We couldn’t be a party to the disrespect. We waited until we were cleared and last off the runway for the night , walked out of the cockpit, took a knee and deplaned. They’re not going anywhere until tomorrow.”

This week was the worst week in NFL history for ratings. Next week will be worse.

I will still watch the NFL. As have been for thirty plus years and counting. And despite what is going on in the way of in the kneeling down. Good for the Saints pilots. As really know the feeling of having a loved one serving past, present, and future in the family.

1. Make all federal student loan payments tax deductible. Interest, definitely, but I would propose principal and interest.

2. No more student loans for whatever you want. Federal student loans will be awarded only for majors determined to be in demand or needed (based on projections), to be re-evaluated every year. So, if you want to go to school for engineering, or computer science, etc? The government will pay. Want to go to school for art history? You can pay for it out of pocket.

3. Partial, across the board student loan forgiveness up to a certain amount, so long as that money is used for purchasing a home, starting a business that employs people, or put into a retirement fund (e.g. up to $30,000 forgiven upon showing that you have put that amount into a down payment or into a 401k). Could add other categories.

In theory, in the short term, you decrease what the government gets from the loans, but you also significantly decrease delinquency and you boost entrepreneurship and the real estate market.

1. Making student loans cheaper will only spur demand for more loans - economists on both the left and right agree on this (though to different extents).

2. Who determines what an 'in demand' major is? Believe it or not, Architecture has the highest unemployment rate for recent grads. Social work does pretty well.I completely understand where you're coming from, but best of luck selling this. And it is more complicated than you'd think.

3. Two major problems here. First is moral hazard - What about the people who have already paid their loans back? Or the people who chose not to attend college (or grad school) because of financial considerations? You've just punished people for making a correct financial decision while rewarding bad behavior. Second, you need to make up that revenue shortfall somehow. Does the government issue more debt? Do they increase taxes? Either way, you're pulling money out of the economy which will offset any of those expected boosts.